Cour de cassation

The Court:

…

Given that according to the judgment under attack (Court of Appeal, Bordeaux, 4 October 1994) there was a collision on 24 May 1989 between a bicycle ridden by Sébastien Bertrand, aged twelve, and the motorcycle of Domingues, who was injured and claimed compensation from Jean-Claude Bertrand, father of the child, as being civilly answerable for him, and his insurer, the UAP, and given that the Court of Appeal … was free to decide that that the accident was entirely due to the imprudence of the cyclist in suddenly emerging on to the national highway right in front of Domingues;

Given that the decision below is criticised for holding Jean-Claude Bertrand liable whereas, according to him, the presumption of liability of the parents of a minor child under article 1384(4) Code civil can be rebutted not only by proof of force majeure or fault of the victim but also when the parents prove that they were not at fault in the education or supervision of the child, and for violating article 1384(4) by failing, in their belief that only force majeure or fault of the victim could exonerate him from the legal liability imposed by article 1384(4), to inquire whether Jean-Claude Bertrand had not proved the absence of any fault of supervision;

But given that the decision was perfectly right to state that only force majeure and fault of the victim could exonerate Jean-Claude Bertrand from his legal liability for the damage caused by his resident minor son, the Court of Appeal had no need to inquire into any possible fault in parental supervision; from which it follows that this ground of application for review is unsustainable;

…

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Civ 2, 19 February 1997: “Once a Court of Appeal had correctly held that only force majeure or a fault by the victim can exonerate a father and mother from the strict liability arising by reason of losses caused by their infant child living with them, that Court did not have to enquire whether or not there was a failure of supervision by the father”.

Doctrine maintained: cf. Civ.2, 02.12.1998, Bull. no .292: “Only force majeure or a fault by the victim can exonerate the father and mother of strict liability for loss caused by the infant child living with them. It follows that, if a Court of Appeal limits itself to holding that nothing proves that a mother failed in her duty of supervision, without identifying one of the grounds for exoneration from the strict liability imposed upon her, that Court deprives its decision of a basis in law” and 9 March 2000, Bull no. 44 : “There is a breach of Article 1384, Paras. 4 and 7 of the Code Civil if a Court of Appeal holds that, their son having been left with a child-care centre with medical facilities at the time of the accident, the parents could not prevent the act which caused the loss, since only proof of a case of force majeure or of a fault by the victim could exonerate the parents from the strict liability for losses caused by their infant child living with them, and the fact that they had temporarily left the child to that centre did not bring about the ending of the cohabitation of the child with his parents” or, again, Civ. 2, 20 Aprli 2000 (Bull. no 66): A parent can absolve himself from the strict liability for loss caused by an infant child in class to his teacher only by proving force majeure or a fault by the victim, and the presumption of liability of Article 1384, para. 4 of the Civil Code is not rebutted solely because the infant was in the school at the time the events occurred.

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.